Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House 635
Jeff K writes "Facts and science collide with tribal loyalties, the Washington Post reports: 'Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.'"
Your skin is not melting (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember years ago when the offical stance was there is no such thing as global warming, this has evolved to, there is no proof of global warming, to okay it exists but it isn't our fault, somehow I get the feeling the intention now is to attempt to prove it isn't caused by the biggest donators to the Bush administration.
When the whitehouse and the pentagon started to open up and declassify documents all those years ago, it was a good thing it felt like finally they are opening up, now things are going back to feeling more like the cold war, a policy of secrecy, spying (although internally now rather than on a foreign element), lies, and gagging the people with important information.
So as you feel your skin cancer forming and watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of destroying the effectiveness of my post I'd like to clarify that that wa
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:2)
I am in no way blaming the current administration for global warming, I do accuse them of covering up and protecting the people that have contributed to it though, if the oil companies had to pay out to help clean up their
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:2)
Of course there is a difference, if you kill someone and
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Informative)
When you see this point, it's always a good indication that the person making it doesn't have a clue about WTF they're talking about.
Here's [sciam.com] the scoop from a geologist, you know, someone who actually knows something about this topic:
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like the author of that book had an agenda. And wasn't very well informed.
Volocanoes are responsible for "global warming". If the gases that they spew are more plentiful that all that humans can put out in 100 years then they are far more responsible.
Except that volcanic eruptions over the last 100 years only account for 4% of the total greenhouse gas emissions over that same period. Which goes back to my point. You'll need to find a better book to quote.
It's rather amazing what conclusions you can reach when you decide the results before you begin your "research". Most of what the right-wing comes out with is based on this kind of "research".
It's so strange. Politically, I'm in the middle-right myself. Lately, however, I find that I have more in common with the statements coming from the left than the right-wing nutjobs, who seem to have not only inhaled, but gargled the bong water. My most sincere hope is that McCain can carry the Republican ticket, and we can wrest the Republican party back from the lunatic fringe. Wasn't the Republican party supposed to be the one defending personal liberties? So why in hell is the current president & cronies leading the charge to destroy our Constitutional freedoms?
(I know the answer: neo-cons are actually fascists at heart. It was a rhetorical question.)
Regards,
Ross
Why is McCain exempt? (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think he's any better? McCain voted for every one of Bush's failed policies, stood shoulder to shoulder with him in 2004 and has his share of lobbyists on his staff payroll doing his part for the K Street Project. Oh, he stood up against Bush on torture. Woohooo, that was a pretty safe departure. He didn't stand up and slam the administration's response to hurricane Katrina, didn't start yapping about campaign finance reform until the Repubs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And didn't take a stand on the war in Iraq until the political wind started to shift. He voted for the Credit Card Company give back labeled bankruptcy reform, the Drug Company Medicare Benefit Plan and all of the spending in the 8 TRILLION dollar deficit. That's $90,000 for every family in America.
I say he's just as corrupt as the rest of them and you're one of the people who supported them.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Bush and Cheney anger people (Score:3, Interesting)
If you call what he's doing "entirely responsible", what would you call what European countries are up to? Because they are inarguably way ahead on doing something about the problem.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent posting [slashdot.org] about a new fossil link between water creatures moving onto land is the classic example (as is archaeopteryx). Such a creature was predicted both in the evolutionary path as well as the geologic path. And the prediction was confirmed by the discovery.
But the IDers will now say (and this was discussed ad nauseum in the postings) "Well what about the creature that came before or after it? Where are those fossils?"
So off the paleontologists go and find those fossils and the IDers repeat the same questions. Same thing here. The evidence for global warming continues to be found and expanded upon and every time the data is presented someone chimes in "But man can't affect the Earth! We're too small in the grand scheme of things."
In 1815 Mt Tamboras eruption caused the year without a summer. It spewed out roughly 40 million tons of gases and ash from April through June. In one year man produces orders of magnitude more pollutants through the burning of fossil fuels than was done in those two months. Apparently it's ok for a volcano to influence the worlds climate but when man throws out, on a continuing basis, enormous quantities of pollutants every year, well that can't have an effect on the climate.
It's time to get over ourselves. We are, to an extent, influencing global warming which may or may not be a natural phenomenon. These are facts which cannot be disputed. But as the parent poster said, as you watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
The really sad part is that if prevention or at least mitigation would take place it would provide a needed boost to employment in this country. Think of all the companies who would need to expand or be created to produce the pollution control products for factories and power plants. Think of all the people who be needed to service those products.
If nothing else, think of the influx of taxes that the Republicans could use to create a bigger, more intrusive government. Think of the children and all that porn that could be banished from the interweb! Won't someone think of the children!
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:4, Insightful)
This statement on /. is getting to be like Godwin's Law. I'm hereby naming it "Martorana's Law" (that's my last name) - within any discussion of Science, there is an ~90% chance that someone will take the opportunity to take a swipe at ID.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an IDer. But for God's sake, this is flaimbait. An obvious attempt to get the discussion going again so mods can have fun down-modding any IDer into total oblivion while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened, so much more intelligent than the masses.
So "Martorana's Law" is now on the books. Slashdotters love to put down ID, even during a discussion on global warming or current administration corruption.
Good job. Pat yourself on the back. So enlightened.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an IDer. But for God's sake, this is flaimbait. An obvious attempt to get the discussion going again so mods can have fun down-modding any IDer into total oblivion while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened, so much more intelligent than the masses.
Okay, here I am. I'm a fundamentalist creationist. I believe the literal understanding of Genesis is the most likely explanation of what happened, although it may not tell the full story, and/or may be figurati
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Informative)
So, you either believe the literal word of Genesis, or you believe it might be figurative. And if you're truly a fundamentalist, its the former.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Funny)
Not if you want to call yourself a fundamentalist, it's not.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Insightful)
The enlightened person realizes this and points out the symmetry. That way, we can use the same logical basis for defeating these intellectually dishonest criticisms on climate research that we use to defeat ID.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've discovered the new Godwin here.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Funny)
ID is relevant to this debate! (Score:4, Insightful)
They are attempting to undermine the very basis of rational thought just because it doesn't align with what they think the Bible says. This is NOT new -- Luther himself called reason "Satan's whore." There is a long and rich tradition of anti-intellectualism in this movement, and the denial of global warming (and then the backup position, that humans aren't involved) goes hand-in-hand with Intelligent Design. Also involved here is the fact that most evengelicals (who make up the vast bulk of the ID movement) believe that Jesus is coming back during their lifetime--i.e. end-times are nigh. If you literally believe that you and yours will be raptured to Jesus in the next few decades, then don't you think that might just influence your views on the necessity of environmental activism? So flinging about the label of religious nutjob, while entertaining, is not by any means gratuitious.
ID and "skepticism" over global warming are both integral parts of the same movement. This linkage is not figurative or polemical--we're talking about two fronts being fought by the same army. So bringing up ID in this context is nothing at all like calling someone a Nazi just because you don't like them.
Yes, moderators land hard on ID proponents, just as they would if someone said "I don't buy it that germs cause disease," or, "I don't believe in continental drift--it's just a theory." The astounding arrogance and willful ignorance of ID proponents deserves to be modded down. Would you be for "teaching the controversy" to placate a group that wanted to displace the germ theory in favor of the idea that demonic possession causes illness? No, eventually you'd get snippy and start humiliating them in public, because it's just a stupid position to take.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:
According to this article [umich.edu] the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article [ecobridge.org] (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say [noaa.gov], you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry [wikipedia.org] which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
After all that I found another source [sdsu.edu] which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.
As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons [bellrock.org.uk] while another indicates 400 million tons [physorg.com].
Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.
I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article: "Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy."
It doesn't sound like there's any denying going on, but rather a question regarding the impact?
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Bush gang does seem to have wised up that the denial isn't really going over all that well. So they've switched to the traditional "Further research is needed" approach.
"Yes, some scientists say there's warming, but they don't agree on exactly how much or exactly what the causes are. We should wait until the scientists can reduce their error estimates to zero and prove exactly what's happening. Unt
Cautiously Submitting a Non-Biased Article (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would like to point out that there is a good article regarding this matter [factcheck.org] and it happens to take a look at it without political bias (if you believe that's possible).
Essentially what I'm asking you is, "Would a Democratic president be doing anything differently?" That's hard to decide--both sides are all talk and no action on this subject.
Re:Cautiously Submitting a Non-Biased Article (Score:2)
whilst attempting not to get into a political discussion, I am not directly focusing on a political party here, just a particular individual, that I feel isn't exactly suited to his job.
I am not saying democrats would be different but the individual leading them could be.
Re:Cautiously Submitting a Non-Biased Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the answer is quite clear on this. The last Democratic president was doing things quite clearly differently (i.e. supported Kyoto and didn't suppress embarrassing research results); it was a Republican Congress that blocked his efforts. The 2000 Democratic candidate is active in raising awareness of global warming. It's reasonable to believe that another Democratic president would do things differently as well.
I'm tired of "the other side is just as bad" bullshit arguments. After the results of the 2000 elections, it should be pretty clear that that's not true. Most of the people who make those kind of claims are just trying to avoid moral responsibility for results of their (selfish) choices.
Misconception (Score:5, Funny)
And global warming is linked to an incidence of skin cancer... how?
I think you're referring to the ozone hole.
That was the LAST Impending Global Catastrophe. Keep up with the times.
Global warming won't cause a boreal ozone hole (Score:4, Informative)
But even in the presence of PSCs you need stratospheric chlorine levels above a threshold value before substantial ozone depletion takes place. That's there wasn't any ozone hole before 1980 despite plentiful PSCs over Antarctica. By the time anyone thinks we'll have enough cooling for significant PSC levels over the Arctic, CFC concentrations will have fallen well below the threshold for ozone hole formation, so it's very difficult to imagine a polar ozone hole even in the presence of very strong global warming.
Not about truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Polar Bears Going Extinct (Score:3, Informative)
The thick multi-year ice essential to polar bears has been shrinking 8 to 10 percent per decade, and already, an area of sea ice roughly equal to twice the size of Texas has melted away. Some studies forecast an ice-free Arctic in summer as early as 2050, spelling certain doom for polar bears.
The effects of global warming on polar bears can already be seen in the western Hudson Bay,
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Funny)
Actually more middleleft, but if you prefer to remain blinded to the reality perhaps the extra UV rays will aid your efforts.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:2)
Slashdot has always leaned left, but when it comes environmental issues the moderators are giving the smackdown to opposing viewpoints a bit too heavily these days. Does the other side not even get to be heard?
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they should arrest all those nasty storms (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the cost of doing nothing is much lower in the long run.
Re:Maybe they should arrest all those nasty storms (Score:2)
>I wonder what the statute of limitations is on ruining the environment.
The laws of nature have no limitations.
Sometimes they are a bit slow, but they are relentless.
do they care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:do they care? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Rick
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
Ah, so we should be telling government employees what they should talk about.
Wait...
Re:do they care? (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't appear that US citizens even care about global warming. Maybe work on this first, or is the Federal goverment responsible for public morals?
Actually, according to http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/0 4/1154214 [slashdot.org]:
I'd say the public's morals are just about right, and it's time for the government to take notice and change its backward policies.
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
On the surface, global warming would seem to be an ideal issue for this, since it's not likely to be solved for a while, but it's also not divisive enough. You can't really play on peoples' religious fervor on any side of the issue: the Bible doesn't say a whole lot a
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
The most amusing (and truthful) analysis of Bush's recent poll numbers state 1/3rd of the country thinks he's boiled evil, another 1/3rd has a maliable opinion, and the remaining 1/3rd would eat glass before saying ANYTHING against a Republican administration.
So, it leaves only 29% sticking by Bush/Cheney and their "conservation is a personal virtue but bad public policy" viewpoint. On the surface Bush tried to communicate some conservation goals, but they are the equivalent
Re:do they care? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish that this meant that Americans actually care about global warming, but think about this for a second. What is our voter turnout rate? Less than 50% right? However, just about everyone has an opinion about the gov't. They want something done and they bitch about it, but they never actually DO anything about it. Sure, maybe we can get most Americans to turn down their thermostat 2 degrees. But what if they had to give up their precious SUV's? Just because people say they are willing to make sacrifices doesn't mean they will.
But because of this, I couldn't agree more that the government needs to change it's policies.
Re:do they care? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:do they care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
It could be real, but the message isn't getting heard through the bullshit.
Re:do they care? (Score:2)
Re:Yes, they care (Score:3, Interesting)
As an American, I'd like to add (anecdotal) evidence that many Americans are just as sensitive to this topic as our European counterparts. I apologize if I ramble a lot, but I hope somebody at least finds it an interesting read. I work in the IT department at the American subsidiary of a European-based corp
Not just Americans. (Score:5, Insightful)
You only have to read a slashdot story on Climate Change (and the amount of time posters call it "global warming" to know that the vast majority of people all over the world are not getting the full story on climate change.
I'm more worried about the current administration's failure to legislate forced change to energy (particularly oil & gas) consumption, then I am about the American public's lack of awareness of the facts.
Re:Not just Americans. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm more worried about the current administration's failure to legislate forced change to energy (particularly oil & gas) consumption, then I am about the American public's lack of awareness of the facts.
It's a classic free rider problem [wikipedia.org] and therefore a responsibility of government. It's also a worldwide free rider problem, where individual countries can choose to be a free rider.
The vast majority of people is not competent to judge what is happening. As always, people will believe the story if they believe in the authority of the messenger. In many countries in Europe, the climate change story has been adopted as fact for some time by governments, media, and meteorological services. In the US it hasn't.
The willingness to act on climate change obviously also depends on the consequences. In the Netherlands the government is already investing billions to deal with higher sea levels and more river water than was projected in the past. The last two decades have been so extremely wet that it cannot be a coincidence anymore according to the national meteorological service.
Re:Not just Americans. (Score:2)
I started to formulate a response, about how China is diversifying its energy sources, and the US needing to do the same to compete, rather then be stuck, dependant on a rapidly diminishing coal & oil supply.
Then I noticed your handle (and a quick perusal of your comment history confirmed you're a troll) and decided not to bother.
Re:Not just Americans. (Score:2)
Its nice to know someone has balls (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I like this Pieter Tans guy. I think there needs to be more scientists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people like him, who don't allow their convictions to be challenged by the administration.
Re:Its nice to know someone has balls (Score:3, Interesting)
And another i
Of course ... (Score:4, Funny)
There is no Global Warming! (Score:3, Funny)
Why do you keep saying that the clima....*GLUB* *GLUB* *WHOOSH* *FLUSH* *GURGLE* *BUBBLE* *pop*
Seems familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems familiar (Score:2)
I'm sure the government of Waterworld in 2350 or so will look back on us vaguely apologetically while recycling their own urine into drinking water.
Semi-familiar (Score:2)
Yes, but he was dealing with a bunch of midaeval religious fanatics.
As science was removed from the political, innovation and creativity flourished.
Science has always been political; probably always will be. Perhaps you mean "as the supression of politically unacceptable experimental results decreased".
Re:Semi-familiar (Score:2)
Yup, evangelicals love Bush.
Re:Semi-familiar (Score:2)
Good question. If there are no further questions, this press conference is now finished.
Don't blame Bush! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush is evil, yes, yes, but stop blaming him for Global Warming.
You want the truth? This is *my* fault. In fact, just yesterday I noticed the bathroom light was on, and I figured "oh well, not worth getting up" and left it on.
Anyone under the age of 30, intelligent enough to use a computer, who intentionally reproduced despite the COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD STATE OF AFFAIRS, should be very, very ashamed of themselves. Anyone attempting to "play dumb" or "blame politics", doubly so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DUP...oh wait, nevermind. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh, FYI it goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Get the government money out of the freakin cliamte research studies to begin with, and they might actually become credible.
Re:Uhh, FYI it goes both ways (Score:2)
Yeah, let coorporations pay for climate research studies, that'll make them a lot more credible!
Re:Uhh, FYI it goes both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
How is that fair when it ignores the peer review process that is designed to eliminate these biases?
Get the government money out of the freakin cliamte research studies to begin with, and they might actually become credible.
Straw man. You give no explanation as to how they are not credible, nor do you state how a non-government entity would be able to avoid this charge of budget increase bias. If one was to look at the credibility of the Bush Administration vs. the credibility of NOAA and EPA scientists, I don't see a scenario where the Bush Administration has higher credibility.
The GOP has been cynically playing the role of the skeptic, but they are not offering rational criticisms, just hyperbole and rhetoric. This is an old tactic of theirs, they prey on the idea that to be intellectually honest, one must consider all evidence and the misunderstanding that induction increases scientific knowledge. They do not offer counter evidence, or attempt to falsify the claims of climatologists, they attack the integrity of the climatologists using the old trick of infinite logical regression. Using infinite logical regression exposes the logical fallacy of justified knowledge, the root cause of the problem of induction. The Bush Administration and it's allies have simply not offered scientifically valid criticisms, yet they claim that they are correct in a matter of science.
The only way to defeat this utter absurdity is to realize that science does not rely on induction. They have not falsified theories on global warming, they have only attacked the inductionist view of the evidence pertaining to climate change. Unless you believe that scientific knowledge is increased by induction (a logical fallacy), their criticisms are useless to furthering the search for truth on climate change.
This is either more incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the Bush Administration. As before, neither is acceptable.
Re:Uhh, FYI it goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
This is possibly the most flawed argument I've ever read on Slashdot. Of course the disasters that happened weren't stopped. The disasters that didn't happen were the ones that were stopped. Obviously, we can't count them. That doesn't mean they weren't prevented.
How many more deaths would their be from earthquakes if building codes on earthquake-prone areas didn't exist? L
Throw out the coin. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton was no better, no matter what the Progressives might say. This is the reason guys like this run for office -- to change the climate of thinking in the US and in the World. When it comes to public opinion, you may win on occasion when the big guys pick your side, you may lose on occasion. But when it comes to reality, you'll always lose -- the politicians will never do things the way you want them to, and they usually have hidden reasons for doing what they do.
If this doesn't help prove the case for withdrawing federal funding of research (and arts and dozens of other areas) to better allow researchers to publicize evidence for their beliefs, I can't think of what will.
There is no federal mandate for financing science or art or anythink of the sort, and the reason for it was so that the science and the art wouldn't be corrupted by opinion or political control.
Politics aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
Offtopic (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, this is just an 'interesting' travel anecdote - and has nothing to with anything here.
There is no such thing as global warming! (Score:2)
You'd think New Orleans would've worked as a wake-up call, to show Bush that there IS actually some problem with the weather, and how we affect it. But I guess we should hope for some flood in his basement for a change to see some change in politics. Some people don't give a rat's bottom until it goes after their own rear.
Canada following suit (Score:4, Informative)
We have Super Computers working On it right now! (Score:2, Funny)
The scientists have 65536 Pentium 4 processors working on the problem right now, each consuming 400W of power, all to model the earth and it's atmosphere in an effort to fortell the climate changes that are underway.
10 40Ton Air conditioners are cooling the computer room where all this computing is going on. Safely venting the heat to the cool night sky.
It won't be long before we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that global warming is happening.
We just need a few more coal pow
But researchers aren't forthright (Score:2)
"These findings are carefully researched but only subjective
Perfect reason not to mix science and the state. (Score:2)
Most people (OK, not everyone) agrees that a seperation between Church and State is good, but that is because nowadays religion has become irrelevant. Sure, it is easy to keep the Church seperated from the State, because the Church is no l
George Bush is CLEARLY teh debbil! (Score:5, Insightful)
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - TIME, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
But NOW (I understand) they're sure?
Let's just point out:
"From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, North America experienced colder and generally more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase slightly moister than the present began, and conditions at least as warm as the present lasted until about 115,000 years ago. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate with a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by cold and aridity in many areas around 11,000 14C years ago."
(Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAME
Does the temperature seem to be moving up lately? Yep.
Beyond that, it seems to be a huge guessing game: are humans responsible for the current warming? (personally, I think we probably contribute significantly to it)
Is warming a catastrophe? Even IF you buy into the Cassandras, for every "coral reef is gonna die because the water's too warm!" it's hard to believe that there's not a corresponding expansion (northward) of coral-reef-able zones. For every acre of expanded desert, there's another acre of former-tundra that now has a growing season.
And don't even get me STARTED on "cities will flood" crap. Duh? For ANY city in any location, over a long enough span of time, the odds of it surviving unscathed are ultimately zero. Nobody built the big cities (generally starting as a cluster of wooden huts around a river or nice bay) with an eye toward their long term survivability - NOBODY. To presume at this point that we need to exert every effort to somehow FREEZE Earth's dynamic climate to accomodate habitation choices made 000's of years ago?
That's just stupid.
Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
To coin a phrase (Score:2, Funny)
The best sites on the issue (Score:3, Informative)
On The Plus Side ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The deliberate intrasigience of the feddies is not the last word. Technology to combat catastrophic climate change is the next big economic opportunity. The only question is whether we make it here and sell it there, or vice versa.
As long as our political leadership are tied to old-fashioned energy sources, they have no incentive to develop & implement the new technologies that will replace the old ... it's a classic "Innovator's Dilemma" [businessweek.com].
And it has an "Innovator's Dilemma" solution: outsiders develop small, nimble technologies, some of which fail, some of which succeed; eventually they eat the dinosaurs (...sorta like the desktop PC in the era of the mainframe.) You, yourself, can probably figure out a few clever ways to create or implent a green tech in your own city. Give it a try! [A few suggestions here] [rewinn.com]
What is better than making an honest buck while thumbing your nose at the anti-scientists!
This is not an American issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Sciam (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gov Money (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ignorance will not be bliss ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like new Orleans?
Re:Ignorance will not be bliss ... (Score:2)
Re:The More i hear (Score:2)
It's "freedom of speech", not "freedom from consequences". If you go into work and talk shit about your boss, you can't whine about freedom of speech when you get fired
This is government, not business (Score:4, Informative)
In effect, a non-issue. Most of you already know you shouldn't go to the media and make comments about the job your boss is doing, or make comments about what they should do instead.
No, it *is* an issue. My tax dollars are at work funding government scientists. What's the fucking point of paying these scientists to do research if they can't talk about the results of their work with the public? We have a long tradition of federally-funded scientists being generally insulated from politics, because in the past both major parties have recognized the value of unbiased scientific research.
The Bush Administration has been muzzling the results of government-sponsored research for several years now, and this is a very troubling development. Representative democracies (yes, even republics, for those of you who will latch onto the semantics) need some areas of government to be devoid of partisanship.
If you're wondering about Hansen's reference to Nazi Germany and the USSR, read Hitler's Scientists [amazon.com] to see how science can be co-opted for political ends.
Re:This is government, not business (Score:2)
Re:World. Ending. (Score:2)
Re:World. Ending. (Score:2)
Re:World. Ending. (Score:2)
However, youll find that going above your boss' head is not the best way to get ahead, in public sector or private sector. Public sector has always been about politics, rather than who is "right"
Re:World. Ending. (Score:2)
The administration can disagree with the findings but they should not be gagging them. They need to make a case in a public court as to why they believe global warming is not the problem these scientists say it is. But that would start to look like democracy.
Kind Regards
Re:World. Ending. (Score:2)
Well... There is that feedom of speach and press thing.
And although that may not apply to private businesses, you could hardly call the Whitehouse a private business (at least I would hope not).
Wrong. (Score:2)
Re:World. Ending. (Score:4, Insightful)
> don't want them to field questions on public policy
When public policy is related to science, talking about science is talking about public policy.
The current White House policy is to deny castrophic global climate change; therefore scientists are forbidden to tell the truth about the science of global climate change.
It is simply wrong to tell scientists to lie about their findings.
You really don't get it, do you? (Score:2)
This administration is starting to look more like China that the
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
The pollution in question is carbon dioxide. One litre of petrol will produce the same amount of carbon dioxide when burned, regardless of the engine in which the burning takes place. Hence, as far as global warming is concerned, the fuel-efficiency of your vehicle is all-important.
Of course, there are other pollutants in car exhausts, against which measures the new-but-inefficient car may perform better, but that's a separate issue.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
No (Score:2)
Re:Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Cricht (Score:3)
Re:This is an engineering problem, why not solutio (Score:3, Insightful)
false
from sci.environment today: